UDOT has decided that the 4800 North proposal from Lehi city is not a viable alternative for the Mountain View Corridor. This decision officially takes that proposal off the table for future consideration on this project. Now it’s time for the city of Lehi to push for the most acceptable solutions from among the remaining alternatives. I hope that instead of complaining that we got overruled the city leaders will try to make the most of the options available. We still need better commercial development and more options to help people have shorter commutes. I still think there are ways that we can help Lehi to become a destination on the Mountain View corridor, and not merely a path between home and work for all the people in Eagle Mountain, Saratoga Springs, Alpine, American Fork, and Highland.
Month: March 2008
Categories
Mr Fill-in-the-Blank
This morning started with the phone ringing as Trent Hall asked for someone to give the closing prayer in sacrament meeting – I accepted the invitation. Laura and I decided that it would be prudent to keep most of the family home rather than spread last week’s flu/RSV type bug to the rest of the ward since everyone who had been sick was probably still contagious. I went to church with only Mariah and Laura asked me to take her place in the library since she was staying home (having been among the sick this week). As I settled in to my chair for the beginning of priesthood meetings a member of our bishopric approached me and asked if I would lead the music there.
I’m trying to decide – is it a good thing that I’m able to do all those things so that I can help out in many different ways, or is a bad thing that I have a wide variety of skills so that I have no excuse to decline?
Categories
The Declaration of Independence
I doubt that I could add any new commentary on The Declaration of Independence but in reading it again I was reminded of why there are only three paragraphs with which most people have any familiarity (the first two and the last one) – all the rest of the declaration is filled with statements that are specific to the situations of that time. The one thing that really struck me as I read was that as we talk about revolution or change in government we should apply the same standards that are outlined in this declaration. First, we must recognize the purpose of government:
. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .
Second, as we work to effect a change of government we should remember how and when that should be undertaken:
. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
In case anyone is not clear on the point – I don’t think our situation warrants abolishing our government as currently established – partially because we have have established methods for regular transitions of power. What I do believe is that because of our system of citizen involvement and established and regular transfers of power it is our never-ending duty to pay attention to the way that government is altered and to revoke previous alterations in cases where they prove to be either destructive or ineffective for their desired purpose. Always in our efforts to make or unmake alterations we should be looking back to the original statement of the purpose of government.
One final observation – the rights listed as examples of the unalienable rights of all men are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the responsibility of government to secure happiness for each but to ensure their right to pursue happiness as they define it.
Here’s another victory for big brother sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong. Our apparently bored legislature just changed the booster seat law. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for child safety and I would welcome any effort by any group to encourag, educate, or invite parents to keep their children in car seats and boosters longer. My two oldest are old enough to not use boosters legally (or they used to be) but the still do because they like them so far. I would also be happy to see anyone who was making efforts to make booster seats available to people who wanted them but didn’t want to pay for them. What I don’t like is the idea that the government should enforce these suggestions. It’s my business if my kids ride in the bed of a truck, wear seat belts or handle knives at a young age. In fact, big brother should regulate government services before inviting himself into my car – why is it that I can be fined for having my kids in the wrong configuration of a car seat while schools are not even required to have seat belts available when they take 30 kids on a field trip in the school bus?
(Funny thing about using the term “big brother” for government – my big brother is a police officer. From now on I may start referring to government as “big bother.”)
If you know who Lawrence Lessig is you will probably agree with me that he has proven himself to be much more intelligent than the average American citizen. If you don’t know who he is then you’ll have to take my word for it. I read an interview he did for National Review Online and I think that in explaining his personal political view he has captured the essence of the political views of any average American.
I think we’ve got to recognize that the way the system has functioned is to insinuate regulation in all sorts of places that aren’t necessary in order to fuel this political machine of fundraising. There’s this great speech of Ronald Reagan’s in 1965 where he talks about how every democracy fails, because once people realize they can vote themselves premiums, that’s what they’re going to do, and they’ll bankrupt the nation. Well, he had it half right, in the sense there’s a system where people realize they can vote themselves the benefits and destroy the economy. But it’s not the poor who gathered together and created massive force in Washington to distribute income to them. It’s this weird cabal of politicians and special-interest insiders that have achieved this effect. Basically, they can pervert the economy and growth in ways that protect and benefit certain interests.
I’ve read National Review from the age of twelve. I’m a liberal Democrat and I’m proud to be called a liberal Democrat. But the core values that true National Review people talk about in this regulatory context are ones that I understand and in many contexts would wholeheartedly endorse. . .
For example, one of the things that I think is outrageous about what’s happened in the recent past is that most of the kind of distortions that I would point to and say, “We’ve got to fix this,” are distortions that were shifting wealth and benefits to the richest in our society. I’m not talking about tax cuts — that’s a totally separate issue. I’m just talking about regulatory and fiscal structures, successful efforts to shift wealth from the middle to the top.
I find that wrong. And responsibility in my view is that those who are wealthiest, in the strongest position, shouldn’t be using their power to further benefit themselves, using their power over government to benefit themselves. At a minimum, they should bear the burden as much as anybody else and more than that, they should take the view that their responsibility is to make sure the worst off in society have some opportunity. And that means taking care of education, making sure public education functions in the way it is intended to function, and to make sure that health-care systems function in the way that is most efficient. All of these things are the focus of the Democrats right now. I think can be understood as extensions of what it means to be responsible members of society. . .
I’m not apologizing that I believe there is a role for the state. But I am going to say that you have to structure it so that it’s not captured by special interests and being perverted from a minimally intrusive, efficient regulation necessary into a protect-the-most-powerful-class-against-competition regulation.
I think if you look across the history of regulation, you get this time after time. Look at copyright regulation. It is a massive invasion in the innovative process that has been pushed and extended by special interests inside Washington, who have done nothing more than try to use government to protect their business models against new forms of competition. And I think you can see this in a hundred different areas.
I don’t think a liberal should shy away from saying we understand government gets captured. That’s a truth that political scientists have taught us from the day FDR went to Washington — we should learn from that and we should try to respond to that not by saying, therefore there shouldn’t be government. I think in places there ought to be government, but by being really clear to get rid of regulations of government where they’re not serving anything except special interests that happen to have the power to get them into place. (emphasis mine)
I would boil this all down to “there is a place for government regulation in various aspects of society but we must be very vigilant to stop the natural tendency for those regulatory efforts to become warped and corrupted.” I would also emphasize the fact that it is the responsibility of the wealthiest, those in the strongest position as Lessig stated, to do what they can to ensure that those who are the worst off have the opportunity to improve themselves through education and that they have access to basic services such as food, shelter, and health care services.
Note that it is not the responsibility of government to force the wealthy and strong to do this. Note also that it is implied that it is the responsibility of those in the worst situations to take the opportunities available to them. They must be free to shun those opportunities (because sometimes they will).
I believe that the only thing that really divides most average Americans are how much they do or don’t believe the two notes I have listed. This is a far cry from the efforts of Newt Gingrich with his poll derived Platform of the American People – this is just common sense articulated by an uncommon man.
Categories
Block Grants
When I read The Coming Crisis of Big Government I gained a measure of hope that there might be some possibility left for averting the crisis of our soon-to-balloon costs for social security and Medicare. One of the central examples in the article relate to the use of block grants to restructure some of the programs.
Ferrara emphasizes the shocking success of the 1996 reforms of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) welfare program. Based on concepts developed by my long-time friend and Reagan welfare guru, the late Robert Carleson, AFDC was “block granted” back to the states. This means the share of Federal spending on the program was sent back to each state to be used for a new welfare program designed by each state based upon required work for the able bodied.
The key is that the Federal block grant for each state is finite and does not vary depending on how much the state spends. If the state welfare program costs more the state must pay for the extra expense. If the state welfare program costs less then the state keeps the savings.
The required work for the able bodied has been powerful in moving people off the welfare rolls. But even more powerful have been the new incentives for state bureaucrats resulting from the finite block grants. Under the old system, where Federal funds were increased to match whatever the state spent, signing up new welfare recipients at the state level meant bringing more Federal funds to the state. But with the state itself paying for any extra expenses, or keeping any savings, state bureaucrats moved aggressively to get welfare recipients into jobs.
I agree that matching funds methods of financing federal programs only encourages program growth – the states have great incentive to stretch their budgets by putting everything they can think of toward 2 for 1 programs (for every state dollar they spend they have two dollars to spend because of federal matching – at least for 1 to 1 matching programs). The block grant method was apparently useful for welfare, but states are naturally going to balk at the idea of having their budgets limited when their needs feel unlimited.
I also wonder how well block grants will work with other programs such as transportation funding? Here in the Wasatch front we are keenly aware of the need for more funding for roads and transit. Would block grants encourage the state to spend their money on the best solutions, or would they simply shortchange our burgeoning needs?
So here’s the question – do you think that block grants are a widely applicable tool to control the growth of government spending, or do we need to come up with more tools in order to close the lid again on this Pandora’s box?
Sometimes the truth stings – and Jeremy nailed it:
“We’ll soon have a new law (because you know that our big-government-loving governor will sign it) that will make us feel good, will give us a new source of revenue via law enforcement, and will give the finger-waggers another reason to rag on parents.”
Its not just the governor…it is all of our Republicans. These jokers stick us with more and more nanny government year in and year out yet Utahns keep going back to them.
Sorry Reach but any Republican who complains about too much paternalism in our government isn’t assigning the guy in the mirror enough of the blame. We need more libertarian minded leaders in both parties.
It used to be that I would hear people suggest that Utah is a theocracy and I would think they were just bitter because Utah is so politically resistant to secularism. Tonight I have concluded that what we have would qualify as a theocracy. It’s not a theocracy dictated by the LDS church as many would suggest (that’s what made me resist the idea for so long). Instead it is a theocracy based on an informal secular religion focused on enforcing kid- and family-friendly laws lest anyone face the possibility of making a wrong choice. While it is not dictated by the dominant faith of the state it is very palatable to many followers of that faith.
As I have watched our big-government Republican legislature I have clung to the notion that the state Republican party was out of touch with the residents of Utah and that they stayed in power because the state Democrats were too closely tied to the DNC to approach the majority of Utah citizens on some crucial issues. My new theory is that I am out of touch with the majority of Utah citizens and that most of them actually want the kind of government we have here – one that will do anything possible to “prevent” anyone from making any really bad choices (especially where children are involved), one that will solve our health care crisis since the LDS governor of Massachusetts has shown that it can be done, and one that will lead the way in fixing the global warming crisis so that they can drive everywhere they go knowing that the crisis has been averted by their wonderful government regulations.
- RJ: That is an S.U.V; Humans ride in them because they are slowly losing their ability to walk.
- Penny: Jeepers, its so big!
- Lou: How many humans fit in there?
- RJ: Usually, one.
(from Over the Hedge)
Categories
Political Wrap-Around
I found Libertarians for Obama very interesting. I don’t consider myself to be a libertarian, though I have libertarian tendencies, but the points that were cited as places that Obama could score among libertarians are positions I generally agree with and I thought it was ironic that “the most liberal member of the Senate” could hold some positions that would resonate with the “anarchists” in the libertarian section of the political map.
This should serve as a reminder (as if we needed one) that the political spectrum is much more complex than a simple right/left, red/blue, republican/democrat, conservative/liberal line.
I couldn’t pass up the insights of Jim Harper in his post Learned Helplessness
On several occasions recently, I have noted able-bodied Senate staff taking advantage of this convenience. Though they could open the doors themselves and enter more quickly, they press the button and pause a moment as the doors slowly open.
There is a lesson here for policymakers (including those Senate staff): Offered help, people of all abilities will accept it, whether they need it or not. Over time, their abilities to help themselves may atrophy.
I have often watched this same process with my children – they take time to look for the blue button before they enter a door in many buildings. For them there is the novelty of having the door do its own work and also that fact that some of those doors are too heavy for them at their young ages. Still, if I’m going to spend my time at a door I would much prefer that I did so holding the door open for other people to help more people get through the entrance than standing there – holding up the flow of traffic – waiting for the door to open itself. In fact, many times when my kids push the button I open the door for them so they don’t have to wait for those motors. That motor is to help people who need the help when able-bodied people (such as myself) are not around to offer more personalized assistance.